Lessons for Domestic Legislators from International Regulations Protecting the Safe Operation of Drones and Vice- versa Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, I am very delighted to speak to you today, together with this distinguished panel, about aviation safety. But my approach is going to be a little bit different. I will talk about the newest entrant into our airspace: the ¨ Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPAS) /Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) as some countries have decided to call them, or if you prefer simply drones¨ , and the safety challenges this new technology creates. A. Drones as the newest trend in civil aviation. - I would like to begin my presentation by showing a very short video and by asking the audience a few questions: The Chinese startup company ¨Ehang¨ unveiled this year, what it claims is the first passenger drone, capable of carrying one person for about 20 minutes. (Play video) 1.I know you are aviation people, but would you really trust your lives to an autonomous flying vehicle? In other words, would you fly as passengers of an aircraft that is remotely piloted or that simply doesn’t have a pilot and it is operated autonomously? Page 1 of 8
Let’s put another example: (I will ask Thomas to fly an indoor mini drone that I will bring with me to the conference) 2.What would you say if that drone over there, has a bomb on board, and it is going to be detonated remotely in this very moment? 3.Or if goes out of control and crashes, and in the process it injures people and damages property. Do not panic. Luckily, this drone doesn't have a bomb and my dear friend Thomas is an excellent drone pilot. What I wanted to highlight with these examples and questions, is that drone technology has penetrated the public mind with feelings of admiration, but at the same time, accompanied by fears regarding its associated dangers, just as it happened in the inception of aviation. Whatever you decide to call them, drones are being already deployed around the world in a variety of commercial activities, such as parcel delivery, agriculture, pipeline inspection, natural resources exploration, wildlife monitoring, moving making, photography, construction and the list seems endless. This is not a theoretical exercise. These aircrafts exist now, and as in any new technology, it is impossible to predict what commercial uses may lay ahead. Consequently, the international community has the challenge to build a regulatory structure that, allows the introduction of drones into the airspace in a way that is both SAFE and EFFICIENT. So this is the balance we must create. In this endeavor, many countries are approaching the task somehow differently; from what we call this aircraft and to how we categorize them. This is creating fragmentation, instead of harmonization. Just to mention two examples: Page 2 of 8
1) In the United States: Commercial operations are authorized through ¨exceptions¨ until the drone rules are issued. 2) In Europe: Basic national safety rules apply, but the rules differ across the EU and a number of key safeguards are not addressed in a coherent way. Efforts are being made to harmonize the regulations though. But at the end of the day, we have to come out with a harmonized system, where ICAO plays an important role. The FAA forecasts that just in the United States, sales of small hobbyist drones could grow from 1.9 million in 2016 to 4.3 million by 2020, and commercial drone sales could increase from 600,000 to 2.7 million over the next four years. Imagine this trend in a world of almost with 200 countries. ICAO should be the forum in which these issues and challenges are addressed from a global perspective. WHY? Because the roles of this important International Organization include: 1) the promotion of safety of flight in international air navigation; and, 2) the development of all aspects of international civil aeronautics B. What ICAO is doing to regulate the safe operation of drones; (Chicago Convention, SARPs and Guidance Material). - ICAO was asked to address the drone challenge and it developed a study on the Convention on Civil Aviation and its related annexes. An outcome of this analysis was that drones must be operated in a manner that is compatible with today’s aviation system. ICAO has identified the following objectives pertaining drones: Page 3 of 8
1. Integrate drones into non-segregated airspace and aerodromes; 2. Maintain existing level of safety for manned aviation; and 3.Minimize impact on the environment. ICAO is working with States and industries to define aviation improvements that can be implemented regionally or globally. One to these improvements is in the Aviation System Block Upgrades (ASBUs) focused on drones. This ASBUs are organized in three groups of six-year at the end of which all of the provisions should be available to allow drones to operate in aerodrome surfaces and in non-segregated airspace, just like any other aircraft. Block Upgrades are organized in six-year increments through 2030: 1.By 2018: Implementation of basic procedures for operating drones in non-segregated airspace; 2.By 2024: refined operational procedures that cover lost C2 link and detect and avoid technologies; 3.By 2030: Drones should be able to operate on the aerodrome surface and in non-segregated airspace just like any other aircraft; ICAO’s program covers all relevant subjects pertaining safety: such as licensing, certification, use of frequency spectrum, environmental specs, communication navigation, surveillance and liability concerns. Some experience is necessary in order to develop new materials and data collection. Also, there is a timeline for the rules to be addressed. As you can see in this slide, ICAO will be delivering some material every two years. Page 4 of 8
The first guidance material delivered by ICAO pertaining drones is the ¨Manual on Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS). The purpose of this manual is to provide guidance on technical and operation issues applicable to the integration of drones in non- segregated airspace and aerodromes. The material contained here is consistent with those standards already adopted for drones. Amendments adopted in the Annexes of the Chicago Convention pertaining to drones. - Definition of drones: The term ‘aircraft’, being the core device of aviation and subject to extensive international regulation, is not defined in any primary source of Aviation International Law, which is the Chicago Convention, however it is defined in Annex 7. On March 2012, the Sixth amendment to Annex 7 was adopted. This revision included the term ‘RPA’ defined as an unmanned aircraft, which is piloted from a remote pilot station. Rules of the air: On 7 March 2012 amendment 43 to Annex 2 Rules of the Air to the Chicago Convention was adopted. Annex 2 stipulates that a remotely piloted aircraft shall be operated in such a manner as to minimise hazards to persons, property or other aircraft. In this context, Appendix 4 incorporates specific rules to drones in the following categories: – general operating rules; – certificates and licensing; and – request for authorization. C. Main safety challenges for the integration of civil drones into non-segregated airspace.- The pilotless clause. - Page 5 of 8
The Convention provides that a pilotless aircraft cannot be flown over the territory of a State without special authorization. Art. 8 Pilotless aircraft: No aircraft capable of being flown without a pilot shall be flown without a pilot over the territory of a contracting State without special authorization by that State and in accordance with the terms of such authorization… ICAO has focused on the words “no aircraft capable of being flown without a pilot and ambiguously interpreted and concluded that the intention of the drafters of the Chicago Convention with regard to an aircraft flown without a pilot, refers to the situation where there is no pilot on board the aircraft, but controlled by a pilot from a remote station . However, in my opinion, an RPAS is not an aircraft capable of being flown without a pilot. Why? simply because the ICAO Manual on RPAS clearly defines an RPAS as “an unmanned aircraft which i s piloted from a remote pilot station” and goes on to define a remote pilot as “a person charged by the operator with duties essential to the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft and who manipulates the flight controls as appropriate”. Therefore, Article 8 of the Chicago Convention clearly would not apply to drones. Documents carried in Aircraft: Pursuant to Art. 29, every aircraft of a contracting State engaged in international navigation shall carry the specified documents on board the aircraft. However, how can this provision may be applicable to drones? Currently, the carriage of original documents described in Article 29 on board of drones may be simply unpractical in such type of aircraft. To solve this problem, ICAO has proposed the use of electronic versions of the referred documents, which must be acceptable to the State of the Operator and all other States involved in the operation. However, no specific procedure has been either agreed by Contracting States or proposed to accomplish this mandate. Certificate of Airworthiness: Annex 8 to the Chicago Convention contains international regulation pertaining airworthiness. Even though it contains minimum standards Page 6 of 8
Recommend
More recommend
